Morgan v. Kroupa
Supreme Court of Vermont
1DissentGibson, J.
Because I believe that Vermont’s lost-property statute, 27 V.S.A. §§ 1101-1110, rejected by the Court herein, outlines the rights and responsibilities of both true owners and finders of stray domesticated animals, including dogs, and that, under the provisions of that statute, Boy (a/k/a Max) should be returned to defendant, I respectfully dissent.
The Court does not appear to dispute the long-settled, common-law rule that a finder of lost personal property has title that is superior to all but the true owner, see Campbell v. Cochran, 416 A.2d 211, 221 (Del. Super. Ct. 1980); that Vermont’s…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Richardson v. Fairbanks North Star BoroughAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
- Fredeen v. StrideOregon Supreme Court · 1974
- Thiele v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1957
- Jankoski v. Preiser Animal Hospital, Ltd.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1987
- Levine v. KnowlesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1967
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.